Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[P-Min]

God could have chosen from an infinite number of designs when creating the earth, so why choose the one that includes natural disasters that kill and injure children? God could choose any design he wanted for the world, and he chose one that included earthquakes, fires, floods, hurricanes, famines, and other natural disasters. And he chose a design in which he knew these natural disasters would injure and kill innocent babies children.

In fact, he knew exactly when the natural disasters would occur, which of his babies and children it would injure or kill, how exactly it would injure or kill them, and he could perfectly understand the immensity of the pain and suffering that these babies and children would experience as a result of his chosen design.

So why did he choose that design?

[jimwalton]

You are making the presumption that there is a design where light doesn't automatically and necessarily include darkness, where an absence of heat doesn't necessarily create cold, and where every action creates an equal and opposite reaction. Hm. Are you sure that's possible?

You may also be assuming it's possible to create a world where cause and effect are not the governing principles, or at least a world where effects are limited (obviously sometimes artificially) so that any given cause can only create a beneficial effect. Are you sure that such a world is possible?

The Bible indicates that God created weather and climate to bring functional order to the world, and that the world operates on the scientific principles of cause and effect. The world turns, cold and warm air rise and fall creating wind currents and rain patterns, the tectonic plates are in movement, and it sounds as if you want God to not only regulate those so that no one would ever perceive any notion of "physical evil", but also to micromanage them so that there is never any chance of physical evil. So what you're requiring is that the world not run on cause-and-effect at all, but every movement of nature regulated by God so that no storm ever caught a ship, no avalanche ever happened when people were around, no earthquake ever caused a building to fall on a person or animal, etc. So what you're requiring for God to be moral is that the world no longer be rational or contingent, and that science not be possible, for without regularity and predictability, the scientific method is useless. Does this make God immoral because he doesn't micromanage the world and all that is in it? I don't think so.

I have read, for instance, that volcanoes and earthquakes have positive biological effects on the planet. I have read that volcanic gasses are the source of all the water that we have today, and that earthquakes push minerals and metals to the surface, as well as maintain planetary balance, enabling the earth to sustain life. But what you want is earthquakes without damage and volcanoes without ever loss of life. Are you sure that's possible?

Maybe it's just reasonable that the design we have is indeed a first-class design, and that there is no possible design that doesn't have shadows, cold, or limited effects to natural causes. Maybe some further thought and dialogue would be worthwhile.

[P-Min]

Actually, I'm not suggesting any of these things you assume. That's not where I'm coming from. I recognize that if bad things happen to adults then they can learn from those "trials." I also recognize that bad things happen to people that aren't a direct result of god (like nearly everything other than natural disasters). I also recognize that adults can and should be punished for doing bad things. I'm not suggesting that god micromanage in the way you suggest. God could have, for example, created a world where natural disasters didn't happen, or they only happened in unpopulated areas, or they only hurt adults, etc. Presumably God could do any of those things, right? Just like if I'm building a fort for my children I could choose to make it with quality materials and with a design that would result it in not collapsing or injuring my children. I could also choose to make it so that it would injure adults who weigh more and could fall through a poorly made floor, or I could choose to make it so it would injure my children by implementing tripping hazards and putting glass and nails on the floor.

> But what you want is earthquakes without damage and volcanoes without ever loss of life. Are you sure that's possible?

Nope, that's not what I'm suggesting. God could create a world without earthquakes and volcanoes, or could have them happen but not injure people, or could have them only injure adults. I came up with three ideas and I'm not even an omniscient God! Do you believe that coming up with or implementing ideas like that would be impossible for God?

> Maybe it's just reasonable that the design we have is indeed a first-class design, and that there is no possible design that doesn't have shadows, cold, or limited effects to natural causes.

This is a very limiting view of God, one I am not familiar with in Christianity. Does heaven have these hazards? If not, I would assume that God could use some of his knowledge he acquired in creating a natural-disaster-free heaven to design an earth without natural disasters that injure and kill his infants and children.

[jimwalton]

This is a very interesting question, and I'm glad you brought it up. You make a good point that God is obviously able to create a hazard-free environment, viz. heaven, and so why didn't he do that here? Interesting question. You also don't seem to mind having a challenging environments for adults, knowing that benefits can accrue from the challenges, but why the kids? Good question.

First of all, as parents we know that it's not wise to shield our children from all hardships; children that are so shielded never learn the important lessons of life. But you're talking about the more disastrous things, and about the babies. Good question. My response is that God created the world with cause and effect, and most of the time he's not in the business of intervention. He lets things take their course. And so sometimes, as you know, as the bumper sticker says, *stuff* happens. As to why God doesn't intervene, that pokes into the question of why God allows evil and suffering, and there are very good and solid arguments for that. So I'd have to say, at the bottom line, that a good God does not necessarily have to stop all evil and suffering to still be good, and that there are actually good reasons to allow such things, in the grand scheme of things, as the argument about evil and suffering goes.

[P-Min]

If you read my question carefully, it's not at all about god intervening. This isn't a question about why didn't God stop Hitler, or why doesn't god prevent babies from dying in natural disasters. It's a question about why God designed the earth in the first place in such a way that he knew his design would cause the suffering and deaths of millions of his infants and babies by natural disasters. God had the ability to design the earth however he wanted. Among those infinite possible designs, for example, there would have been one that involved no injuries and deaths of infants and babies caused by natural disasters, and one that did involve injuries and deaths of children by natural disasters. And he chose the latter. Why?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the clarification. Sorry I went in the wrong direction. Let me try it this way. It sounds as if your assessment of God's choice in what he created qualifies as a moral evil: He designed the earth knowing that his design would cause suffering and death, particularly of innocent infants. God had the ability to design however he wanted, and he chose the path of injury and suffering of innocents. If I'm right about that (third time's a charm?), I'll use that as a launch point.

God is a moral being. Morality is part of his nature (the Bible says he is good and just). It was God's desire, therefore, to create a world reflecting his goodness: where morality was real, and therefore where attributes necessary for humanity, viz., love, kindness, justice, forgiveness, et al., were present and functional. In order for morality to be reality for created beings, however, both good and evil (like the aforementioned light and darkness) must both be options. (He cannot create moral good and then causally mandate its enforcement, for then his creatures are not free, and therefore not truly moral.) Therefore the only possibility (contrary to your "infinite number of designs" scenario) is to create a world of moral good but with the possibility of moral evil. The only alternative is to build a world devoid of evil, and therefore also devoid of good, and therefore devoid of choice, and therefore human beings are impossible. It is not possible that God could create a universe containing moral good without permitting evil.

Instead, he created what could be logically construed as the only possibly realistic design: a world of moral good containing free persons, and therefore also the possibility for moral evil. Logically (and humanistically) speaking, a world containing moral good (provided that it contains more moral good than moral evil) is better (other relevant factors being equal) than one containing natural good alone.

In keeping with the moral nature of creation, then, even the natural world plays out cycles of what are construed by us as "good" and "evil." (Of course, the Bible asserts that the world is only a destructive place because of the intrusion of sin.) What God has created is a state of affairs such that both good and evil are present by necessity, but the good outweighs the evil. The good and evil together, then, are a good state of affairs, and the only possible state of affairs, if humans are to be humans and not robots. Hence, any evil that is outweighed by at least one good is necessary to have a good state of affairs that outweighs it. This means that God, as an omniscient and omnipotent being, in his goodness has designed an ideal world, where the presence of real evil (even in natural events) is necessary for the presence of real good, and where he can permit some evil to exist as long as there is a greater good at work. He can permit as much evil as he wishes as long as there is a balance of good over evil in the universe as a whole, and this would be so even if it were within his power to create a "better" universe by excising some of all of the evil states of affairs. At bottom, therefore, there is no better design, and it is not within his power to create a self-contradictory universe.

[P-Min]

> It sounds as if your assessment of God's choice in what he created qualifies as a moral evil: He designed the earth knowing that his design would cause suffering and death, particularly of innocent infants. God had the ability to design however he wanted, and he chose the path of injury and suffering of innocents.

Yes, you got it.

> God is a moral being. Morality is part of his nature (the Bible says he is good and just).

And why do you believe the Biblical description of him is true? Lots of books claim lots of things, of course.

I'm not sure I quite follow the argument that there must be evil so that there can be good. Isn't heaven devoid of evil, and yet the ultimate good?

> What God has created is a state of affairs such that both good and evil are present by necessity, but the good outweighs the evil. The good and evil together, then, are a good state of affairs, and the only possible state of affairs, if humans are to be humans and not robots.

Even if this were true, it doesn't answer the question of why God decided to be the author of evil. If god, for whatever reason, wanted babies to still experience pain and suffering he could have designed a world without natural disasters and still accomplished that because there are people who exercise their free will and hurt babies and children. And mistakes happen that injure and cause suffering to babies and children, etc. But God went a step further and decided to design a world that involved natural disasters which he knew would injure and kill babies and children. Why did God choose to author this evil?

> And what's the purpose of babies and infants experiencing the evil of suffering and dying from natural disasters? They're no more likely to experience happiness if they experience the evil of suffering from being burned or crushed or drowned in a natural disaster, are they? Their brains aren't fully developed so they can't learn from suffering and pain. So why does God dole out the evil on them?

> Hence, any evil that is outweighed by at least one good is necessary to have a good state of affairs that outweighs it.

So are you saying that natural disasters injuring and killing babies is evil, but it's ok because there is a good that compensates it? What good compensates it?

> At bottom, therefore, there is no better design, and it is not within his power to create a self-contradictory universe.

What do you mean by a "self-contradictory universe?"

And what evidence do you have that this is the best world he could have created? I understand that you are asserting that, but what evidence do you have that it is true?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for good dialogue.

> And why do you believe the Biblical description of him is true?

The only way we can know about the person of God, his/her/its character, and behavior is if God reveals himself to us. We cannot see spiritual beings or hear spiritual sounds unless the deity reveals himself. Therefore if we believe in the existence of God, and that God has made himself known to us, we need to rationally consider which proposed revelation of Himself is the most reliable and accurate of all the revelations presented as true. They cannot all be true, because they contradict each other radically and deeply. Books and people can claim whatever they want; that's where reason, assessment, and experience have to weigh the playing field. The claim doesn't make it so, but the evidence.

> I'm not sure I quite follow the argument that there must be evil so that there can be good.

Anything that God creates is by nature not God, since God is uncreated. Therefore anything that is created is less than God. God has free will, but because righteousness is his nature, He only chooses the good. Humans have free will, but because our nature is less than righteous, we have the ability to choose what is evil. The only way God can complete keep us from evil is to remove the choice, but that means we can't choose the good either, and therefore we are not moral beings. There must be evil so there can be good.

Another approach: God is love by nature; humans love by choice. The only way for "choice" to be real is if the choice is, um, real. Duh. Love is only love if it is chosen, and for choice to be real (and therefore love to be real) there has to be the choice to not love. If you remove the negative, you also remove the positive.

> Isn't heaven devoid of evil, and yet the ultimate good?

Yes, but heaven is a place where the occupants have chosen to be there, and so the design can be different.

> it doesn't answer the question of why God decided to be the author of evil.

Oh, God didn't *design* evil. Evil was a necessary element in the picture because of free will, as already explained. But God isn't the author of it. God's character is totally good, and he designed a creation that was good, but also with free will (which was also good, and necessary). But with free will came the possibility of evil, and that was chosen against the desire and warnings of God.

> If god, for whatever reason, wanted babies to still experience pain and suffering

God doesn't want babies, or anyone for that matter, to experience pain and suffering. Since people chose that course, God can't stop it completely without making us automatons, so what he does is redeem it with a state of affairs where evil is outweighed by good.

> What good compensates it?

While it is necessary that there is moral evil in the world, from it comes all kinds of benevolence, empathy, human compassion, courage, fortitude, servanthood, and bonding. I'm not contending that God mandates natural disasters so that we can show kindness to each other. God doesn't cause natural disasters; they happen in the normal course of cause and effect. But when they do happen, we often see goodness seeping out of every crack of humanity to help our fellow man. It doesn't justify it ("...but it's ok..."), but it's how good redeems what was necessary to creation.

> What do you mean by a "self-contradictory universe?"

What I mean is a universe where evil by necessity is part of the picture, and yet evil by necessity is restricted from functioning. Evil can't be both necessary and unnecessary.

> And what evidence do you have that this is the best world he could have created? ... [W]hat evidence do you have that it is true?

I gave you my evidence: Reasoning based on the Bible, the character of God as revealed to us, and the nature of life on earth as revealed to us and in conformity with our experiences.

[P-min]

> Therefore if we believe in the existence of God, and that God has made himself known to us, we need to rationally consider which proposed revelation of Himself is the most reliable and accurate of all the revelations presented as true. They cannot all be true, because they contradict each other radically and deeply. Books and people can claim whatever they want; that's where reason, assessment, and experience have to weigh the playing field. The claim doesn't make it so, but the evidence.

I really like this and I completely agree with you. So how do we determine that the Biblical description of God is correct? What evidence have you relied on to come to this conclusion?

> Yes, but heaven is a place where the occupants have chosen to be there, and so the design can be different.

Interesting. And this is a little off topic, but what are you thoughts on babies who die? They never experience free will but my understanding is that many Christians believe they will go to heaven (especially if they were baptized). How could they be happy in heaven without growing up on earth and experiencing evil and choosing good?

> Oh, God didn't design evil. Evil was a necessary element in the picture because of free will, as already explained.

Ok, but the evil I was referring to was more specific (not the general idea of evil which you seem to be addressing). I was specifically referring to the fact that God designed the earth with the perfect knowledge that his design would result in the suffering and deaths of millions of innocent infants and babies. That seems to be evil, and God was certainly the author of it.

> God doesn't want babies, or anyone for that matter, to experience pain and suffering. Since people chose that course, God can't stop it completely without making us automatons, so what he does is redeem it with a state of affairs where evil is outweighed by good.

My question is specific to natural disasters injuring and killing babies and children. Babies do not choose evil. Evil just happens to them. I understand that people may hurt children, and that's evil, right? But why does God hurt children? Why did he design the earth in the way he did if he isn't evil?

> God doesn't cause natural disasters; they happen in the normal course of cause and effect.

But what is the cause? Isn't it God's creation? He designed the earth, meaning he designed the moving techtonic plates lava causing earthquakes and volcanoes. He designed the spinning of the earth and weather causing hurricanes and tornadoes, etc. Those natural disasters are a result of God's design of the earth, right?

> But when they do happen, we often see goodness seeping out of every crack of humanity to help our fellow man. It doesn't justify it ("...but it's ok..."), but it's how good redeems what was necessary to creation.

Are you saying that God's designed natural disasters which injure and kill children are not just, BUT at least there's SOME goodness that comes out of it (people helping each other)?

> I gave you my evidence: Reasoning based on the Bible, the character of God as revealed to us, and the nature of life on earth as revealed to us and in conformity with our experiences.

Why do you believe the biblical account is true?

[jimwalton]

> What are your thoughts on babies who die?

Babies who die go to heaven. There is evidence in about 5 places in the Bible that God does not hold accountable those who are not morally capable. So any baby who dies get a free ticket. The idea of heaven being a place that has been chosen is a generalized truth of the nature of the place and its access, not an absolutized universal applying to the babies who are brought there by a gift of grace. (To treat them otherwise would be brutally unjust.)

> the evil I was referring to was more specific

I know, but I've already dealt with that in some respect, talking about the necessarily moral nature of creation and the reason behind cause and effect. The earth turns, and it accomplishes many beneficial effects in doing so. But there's also a place in the heart of the US where tornadoes form because of it. We know this, and yet people choose to build houses there anyway. Are we blaming God when a tornado rips their house and kills their baby? People build on fault lines, in tornado alley, and on cliffs prone to mudslides. Is God evil? Science will confirm that earthquakes and volcanoes are necessary for life on the planet. Does this require the conclusion that God is evil?

It relates back to the problem of evil. You want God to intervene in weather patterns and geologic events to prevent injury. Let's think this through. So he needs to physically stop any family from building in a place, or presumably walking in a place, where such an event will occur. Or God must make sure that all such events only happen in places where humanity has chosen not to settle, so as to not interfere with our homesteading and traveling. Or, I guess, he needs to give sufficient warning somehow to all families within reach of the disaster so as to give them adequate time to evacuate, or at least the opportunity to do so. That would make him just? Would we expect him, if he's really just, to do the same with other tragedies—people slipping and falling off cliffs, walking in front of cars, walking into a zone where they can contract a disease? "If God was really good, he would have stopped me." We are turning humans into mechanized robots, forced in this direction or that, prevented (mysteriously) from here or there, bodies under the control of a force. If we want A, we'll also want B, and if we get that, I think we'd want C & D. Where does it stop? That's where I was explaining before that God can allow X amount of such things in exchange for us being human, because there are no other choices. If we are to be human with free will (a necessity to humanity), and if the universe is moral (a necessity from God's an man's vantage point), then X amount of things have to be part of the picture. But it doesn't make God evil. If God were to stop all such things, humanity ceases, because that's the only choice if we take away free will and moral choice, even to the point of natural disasters. all of these things—heat and cold, wind and fire, earthquakes, sun flares, tides, volcanoes—make life on earth possible. But when you ask God to make sure that no baby or child ever gets hurts in one is to change the nature of humanity in greater disastrous ways.

If God were to intervene in many, continual, and unpredictable ways preventing injury to children and babies (along with B, C, & D), science would be impossible, and therefore so would much knowledge. Science depends on regularity, predictability, repeatable patterns, etc. If God were habitually in a mode of intervention, at one turn after another, the elements upon which science is based would be out the window. So much of life, by necessity, counts on God NOT intervening often and habitually. It doesn't make him evil to design the earth the way he did.

> Are you saying that God's designed natural disasters which injure and kill children are not just, BUT at least there's SOME goodness that comes out of it (people helping each other)?

God doesn't cause natural disasters. The earth he created includes them, but that doesn't make God immoral.